Heard from a friend that they have outlawed 2 strokes in California. No buying or selling of Detroit's. Canada is not allowing them to be sold up there as well, Could be fear mongers at work. Anybody shed somelight here?

The State of CA doesn't have enough money to buy all the two strokes in the state I have heard that they are certified for so many years.Don Fairchild on this board knows how to build the two stroke to pass emission in CA.If they are outlawed in the state school districts in the state that have the Crowns with the Detroits are in trouble

I haven't seen anything on a statewide ban, but there was a more localized ban discussed at length in the Detroit Diesel Yahoo group a month or so ago. I tried to do a search to find it, but for some reason the yahoo groups search feature isn't pulling up any threads more recent than mid 2007 on any search I did. If I understood it correctly it was specific to the communities around the freight harbors in the Los Angeles area. No trucks without a certain specified level of emssion controls would be permitted to pick up freight there.

With some of the pseudo science propoganda out there, it's a wonder all diesel engines haven't been banned. Check out this example:

I think that's the starting message of a long thread HTR may have been referring to... It takes a while but eventually the thread get to talking about things that can be done to make 2-stroke DDs comply, or at least be more compliant.

My brother in law has a small trucking business and he has been told to sell all his two strokes including the refers by 2010. The two strokes will no longer be allowed as part of the fleet or there are big fines. He just sold his two stroke tractor last week to a guy south of the border. It will be interesting when the law goes into effect and the folks south of the border start to balk and we cave instead of protecting our American truckers.

He had to lease a newer tractor for over $6,000 a month and his fuel bill was more than $15,000 for two small trucks.

the mention of them going after all diesels reminded me that a couple of months back in Popular Mechanics they did a comparison of a new diesel volkswagen that is availible in europe and the prius that all the tree huggers love so much. not only did the VW best the prius by around 10 mpg but it put out less emissions. unfortunatly if you can read a script then apparently you are qualified to make political and scientific observations with out any real supporting evidence.

As most of you all know, I work for Los Angeles Freightliner in the New Truck Sales department. We are in the thick of all the EPA and CARB (California Air Resource Board) rules and regulations. So far, all the time tables for retiring old trucks right now applies to 2003 and older trucks and is voluntary. RV's-including bus conversions used as RV's are exempt-for now. We don't know day to day what is going to appear suddenly as a new rule or regulation. I too have my 8V-71TATAAC engine in my bus, and am a bit nervous that at anytime they may change their minds. But for right now, again-RV's are exempt from needing to upgrade to newer emissions. Good Luck, TomC

The state of California (along with diesel engine manufacturers) is trying to move forward to the newer technology of the 4 strokes. The state says they are doing it for emissions but we all know it is just a way to get more money.. .The same reason for the manufacturers. The state knows about Don's equipment and that it will make the 2 strokes meet the requirements, but I don't think they are too happy about it. Everything he does shows that all of the things they are doing is false. But we are trying to make enough noise that they can't ignore us. We have the state of California Executive Order showing that the parts really do meet specs...

In the context of this thread though, nothing is being done that effects private owners. It is all aimed at fleet owners. The current plan doesn't change that for at least about another 15 years. Of course, we are talking about California. If they think they can get away with it, they will probably try to change it tomorrow.

I do not know of any precedent for legally mandating that existing private vehicles can know longer be used. I think that they generally try to remove them through attrition. That is probably what you can expect here. Even if one state were to try to do something as extreme as that, they would have to allow out-of-state vehicles with those engines on the road anyway. California once had a tax on vehicles brought into the state from elsewhere if they did not meet California standards. They eventually lost it in court and had to refund the money.

California once had a tax on vehicles brought into the state from elsewhere if they did not meet California standards. They eventually lost it in court and had to refund the money.

$300 Environmental Impact Fee. I lived in California for five years and then moved to Tennessee. I never heard about the repeal and payback. So I guess I missed out on that refund.

Funny thing about it. When I grumbled about paying it, the clerk said "Well look at it this way, manufacturers have to pay California $600 for each car sold. Since your pickup was sold elsewhere, and you are only paying $300, California lost $300 too." I told her, "poor California, how will they ever get by?"

Florida had the same type of tax on any vehicle brought in from another state. around $250 or $300 if I remember. I traded a car out of state and when I registered it and they asked for tax I asked what the reasoning for it was. I was told I was adding to the population of vehicles, adding stress to the roads and increasing the environmental impact to the state. I told them that I traded a 1975 Cadillac that weighed 5000 pounds and had almost no smog equipment and brought in a 1989 Cadillac that wieghed 3500 pounds and had a smaller more effiecient engine with the latest in pollution control. Since I didnt change the vehicle population and had a lighter more efficient car I had actually reduced the stress to the roads and environment so based on their logic they should owe me $250. After 20 minutes of them trying to figure that out they decided I had to pay them because they said so. In the end the tax was proven unconstitutional and they had to pay everyone back to the tune of a billion bucks or so.steve